JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award rendered in MACP No.473 of 2000 dated 23/03/2009 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (FTC-3) Gandhidham Kachchh, the appellant – org. claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act whereby the tribunal partly allowed the claim to the tune of Rs. 3,32,500/- with 7.5% interest and cost. 2. The brief fact of the present appeal is such that the husband of the appellant namely Pachan Bhoja Maheshwari (herein called as deceased) on 17/11/2000 after completion of his duty hours, he was returning from Kandla by travelling in Matador No. GJ-7-V-5678 by paying Rs. 5/- as rent at that time the driver of the Truck No. GJ-12-T-7408 came by driving his truck rashly, negligently, with excessive speed and dashed the Matador of the deceased. It is submitted that due to this accident the deceased sustain serious injuries admitted in the Hospital and during the treatment he was died due to fatal injuries. 2.1 The claimant prayed for the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest and cost under Section 166 of the MV Act for the death of her husband against the present respondent by way of filing a claim petition. After looking the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence made by both the sides namely appellant and respondents and after full- fledged trial, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,32,500/- with 7.5% interest and cost. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the claimant would submit that at the time of road accident the deceased was serving with Kandala Port Trust and drawing salary of Rs.9,200/-. He would submit that tribunal though has taken the salary slip of the deceased for the consideration but reduced the amount of pension received by the claimant being widow of the deceased from calculating the loss of future dependency, which led to committing error in computing just compensation. He would further submit that despite the deceased was married, tribunal deducted one-half of the income towards the personal and pocket expenses instead of one-third. He would further submit that multiplier of 14 should be applied as the deceased was 43 years old at the time of road accident. He would further submit that despite the deceased was married, tribunal deducted one-half of the income towards the personal and pocket expenses instead of one-third. He would further submit that multiplier of 14 should be applied as the deceased was 43 years old at the time of road accident. He would further submit that tribunal has granted compensation on lower side under the non-pecuniary head as well, which should be as per the decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. 4.1 For the submission of pension amount received by the widow which should not be deducted while calculating the loss of dependency, learned advocate Mr.Modi placed reliance upon the decision in case of Vimal Kanwar Versus Kishore Dan [ 2013 (7) SCC 476 ]. 4.2 In all it is submitted that learned tribunal has assessed and granted compensation less than just and fair compensation. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Modi would submit to allow the appeal and to enhance the amount of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for both the insurance companies have made two fold submissions. Firstly, they would submit that tribunal committed error in granting 50% for the prospective income which ought to have granted as per decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) and secondly since the claimant is the only dependent of the deceased the tribunal has rightly deducted one-half amount towards the personal and pocket expenses. Upon above submission, they would submit to pass necessary order. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examined the R & P, at the outset, let refer paragraph 23 and 24 of the award of the tribunal whereby the tribunal computed the dependency loss which reads thus: “[23] No any witness of the employer has been examined by the applicant to corroborate their say. On plain perusal of boll the documents it appears that Ex. BA is the slip where only figures are mentioned and the same is for the month in which the deceased died (November 2000) wherein the figure of Rs 9056- is shown and another is for the month of May 2000 wherein the figure of Rs. 7075 is shown. But on comparing both these documents appears that income of Rs. BA is the slip where only figures are mentioned and the same is for the month in which the deceased died (November 2000) wherein the figure of Rs 9056- is shown and another is for the month of May 2000 wherein the figure of Rs. 7075 is shown. But on comparing both these documents appears that income of Rs. 7075 in the month of May 2000 is increased up to Rs.9056/- in the month of November 2000 and no supportive evidence of promotion is produced. Pay slip of Ex 68 on the face of it does not found to be genuine and reliable one The applicant has produced these documents but the applicant has not made any distinction between these two documents Under the circumstance, it is very much difficult rely upon one of the document. Hence, the income of the deceased is not clearly established. Considering the all these facts, if income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 6,500/- per month, then it would he just, proper and reasonable. Therefore, I hold that the income of the deceased as Rs. 6.500/- per month. [24] In view of the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 2008, the benefits. which the claimant receives on account of death or injury, have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation Accordingly. the amount of Rs. 4.000 received by the applicant as family pension is required to be deducted from the income of the deceased while computing the compensation amount, thereby deducting Rs. 4,000/- from Rs. 6,500/-, monthly loss of dependency can be taken at Rs 2,500/- and annual dependency can be taken at Rs. 2,500 x 12 = Rs. 30,000/-.” 7. What could be noticeable that tribunal has deducted Rs.4,000/- from Rs.6,500/- and taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- for arriving at the dependency loss. While taking up dependency loss of Rs.6,500/- as monthly income of the deceased the tribunal has deducted various emoluments and perks, the claimant was receiving from the employer and also deducted Rs.4,000/- being the amount of pension received by the widow of the deceased. The salary slip of the deceased at Exh.68 indicates salary of Rs.9056/- per month and deducting tax, it would come to Rs.9,000/-. 8. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. The salary slip of the deceased at Exh.68 indicates salary of Rs.9056/- per month and deducting tax, it would come to Rs.9,000/-. 8. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [2024 ACJ 1637] in paragraph 1 to 3 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “1. The main plank of the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company rests on a plea that the High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the allowances payable to the deceased were in the nature of personal expenses and the same ought not to have been added to his basic salary to arrive at a dependency factor. Learned counsel submits that allowances under the heads of transport allowance, HRA, PF loan, P.F., SAF, leave encashment cannot be added to the gross income since they are personal in nature. 2. The aforesaid aspect is no longer res integra inasmuch as a three Judges Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation1 has clearly held as follows: “11. Strikingly, the High Court noted the taxable income disclosed in tax return of the appellant for the relevant period as Rs.77,480/- (rounded off) and tax deduction of Rs.4,496/-, yet proceeded to hold that the net income of the appellant has been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is unfathomable that the High Court, despite having accepted the claim of the appellant founded on his tax return for the relevant period, disclosing the taxable income of the appellant as Rs.77,480/- (rounded off) and deduction of tax of Rs.4,496/- could have affirmed the conclusion of the Tribunal that the net annual income of the appellant was Rs. 44,511/-. It ought to have reckoned the taxable income for computing the head towards loss of income. This, in our opinion, is the manifest error committed by the High Court. The appellant is justified in relying upon the decisions of this Court which have 1 2018 SCC OnLine SC 193 taken the view that loss of taxable earning should be reckoned for the purpose of determining just compensation as enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava 2, which has been followed in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben 3, and Kavita v. Deepak4. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava 2, which has been followed in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben 3, and Kavita v. Deepak4. It has been held that the “income” should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax, although some elements thereof may, or may not be taxable due to the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.” [emphasis added] 3. It is apparent from the observations made in the aforesaid decision that the emoluments and the benefits accruing to the deceased under various heads for the purposes of computation of loss of income, which are described by learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company as personal to him to arrive at the dependency factor, ought to be included irrespective of whether they are taxable or not.” 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Meenakshi Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., [ 2024 INSC 573 ] after referring to its earlier decision has again held that components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency loss. Paragraph 9 and 10 thereof reads thus: “9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the appellant.” 9.1 Thus, it is established that while taking up the salarized income of deceased, tribunal cannot deduct different perks and emoluments deceased was receiving alongwith salary, rather they should be included in calculating dependency loss, as well as computing loss of future prospects. 10. What further emerges from the award that the tribunal deducted Rs.4,000/- amount received by the widow as pension which is an error committed on the part of tribunal in view decision in case of Vimal Kanwar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paragraph 19. “19. The first issue is "whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction." The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others V/s Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 . In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court :- ["35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. The following was the observation and finding of this Court :- ["35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, Bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no zemblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual." 11. The law laid down in Vimal Kanwar (supra), has been reiterated in case of Sebastiani Lakra Versus National Insurance Company Limited [ 2019 (17) SCC 465 ] wherein the Apex Court held in paragraph 18 to 20 which reads thus: “18. The EFB Scheme is totally different from the rules which were under consideration of this Court in Shashi Sharma case (supra). Under this Scheme, the nominee or legal heir(s) of the deceased employee have to deposit the entire amount of gratuity and all other benefits payable to them on the death of the employee. 19. In the present case, it stands proved that the claimants have deposited a sum of Rs.27,43,991/- received by them on the death of the deceased with the employer and are now getting about Rs.50,082/- per month. This amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased. Even if an interest @ of 12% per annum is calculated on the amount of Rs.27,43,991/- , that would amount to Rs.3,30,000/- per year or Rs.27,500/- per month. The appellantsclaimants are getting about Rs.50,000/- per month i.e. about Rs.22,500/- per month more, but this is only to be paid for a period of about 7 years till 30.04.2021. This payment will cease thereafter. 20. The aforesaid payment is totally different to the payment made by the employer in Shashi Sharma case (supra) which was statutory in nature. Therefore, we hold that this amount cannot be deducted.” 12. This payment will cease thereafter. 20. The aforesaid payment is totally different to the payment made by the employer in Shashi Sharma case (supra) which was statutory in nature. Therefore, we hold that this amount cannot be deducted.” 12. Worthy assistance can also be taken from the judgment of Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Birender And Ors., [ 2020 (11) SCC 356 ] relevant paragraph 16 to 18 are extracted as under: “16. The next issue is about the deduction of the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules from the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal in terms of the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shashi Sharma (supra). This Court, after analysing the relevant rules, opined as follows: - "23. Reverting back to Rule 5, sub-rule (1) provides for the period during which the dependants of the deceased employee may receive financial assistance equivalent to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course without raising a specic claim. Sub-rule (2) provides that the family shall be eligible to receive family pension as per the normal Rules only after the period during which they would receive the financial assistance in terms of sub-rule (1). Sub-rule (3) guarantees the family of a deceased government employee of a government residence in occupation for a period of one year from the date of death of the employee, upon payment of normal rent/licence fee. By virtue of subrule (4), an ex gratia assistance of Rs 25,000 is provided to the family of the deceased employee to meet the immediate needs on the loss of the bread earner. Sub-rule (5) clarifies that house rent allowance shall not be a part of allowance for the purposes of calculation of assistance. 24. .....As regards the second part, it deals with income from other source which any way is receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee. That cannot be deducted from the claim amount for determination of a just compensation under the 1988 Act. 25. The claimants are legitimately entitled to claim for the loss of "pay and wages" of the deceased government employee against the tortfeasor or insurance company, as the case may be, covered by the rst part of Rule 5 under the 1988 Act. 25. The claimants are legitimately entitled to claim for the loss of "pay and wages" of the deceased government employee against the tortfeasor or insurance company, as the case may be, covered by the rst part of Rule 5 under the 1988 Act. The claimants or dependants of the deceased government employee (employed by the State of Haryana), however, cannot set up a claim for the same subject falling under the rst part of Rule 5-"pay and allowances", which are receivable by them from employer (the State) under Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules. In that, if the deceased employee was to survive the motor accident injury, he would have remained in employment and earned his regular pay and allowances. Any other interpretation of the said Rules would inevitably result in double payment towards the same head of loss of "pay and wages" of the deceased government employee entailing in grant of bonanza, largesse or source of prot to the dependants/claimants..… 26. Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim receivable under the 2006 Rules is absent. That, however, does not mean that the Claims Tribunal should remain oblivious to the fact that the claim towards loss of pay and wages of the deceased has already been or will be compensated by the employer in the form of ex gratia nancial assistance on compassionate grounds under Rule 5(1). The Claims Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim and determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. The amount receivable by the dependants/claimants towards the head of "pay and allowances" in the form of ex gratia nancial assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for the second time to the claimants. True it is, that the 2006 Rules would come into play if the government employee dies in harness even due to natural death. At the same time, the 2006 Rules do not expressly enable the dependants of the deceased government employee to claim similar amount from the tortfeasor or insurance company because of the accidental death of the deceased government employee. The harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the 1988 Act, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee under the 2006 Rules towards the head financial assistance equivalent to "pay and other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased government employee in the normal course. The harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the 1988 Act, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee under the 2006 Rules towards the head financial assistance equivalent to "pay and other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased government employee in the normal course. This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of "loss of income". So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits is concerned, if the deceased government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the 1988 Act. For, it is not covered by the 2006 Rules. Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependants of the deceased government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, life insurance, provident fund, etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependants of the deceased government employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281 cases. 27. A priori, the appellants must succeed only to the extent of amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee in terms of Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules, towards financial assistance equivalent to the loss of pay and wages of the deceased employee for the period specified." (emphasis supplied) The learned Judge of the High Court has, however, after adverting to the decision of the same High Court in Ajmero (supra), went on to observe that 50% of the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased towards financial assistance under the 2006 Rules is required to be deducted from the compensation amount. In the relied upon decision, the same learned Judge had occasion to observe as follows: - "... In the relied upon decision, the same learned Judge had occasion to observe as follows: - "... However, perusal of the judgment would reveal that the Court has not adverted to the issue that had the Rules of 2006 extending assistance to family of a deceased employee been not in existence, family would have been entitled to pension to the extent of 50% of the last drawn pay. As per the settled position in law, the pensionary benefits available to family of a deceased employee are not amenable for deduction for computing loss of dependency. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that in addition to compassionate assistance under the Rules, family of the deceased is being paid pension till the age of superannuation. Rather Rule 5(2) of the 2006 Rules specifically denies family pension as per normal rules..." (emphasis supplied) 17. The view so taken by the High Court is not the correct reading of the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shashi Sharma (supra) for more than one reason. First, this Court was conscious of the fact that under Rule 5(2) of the 2006 Rules, the family pension receivable by the family would be payable, however, only after the period, during which the financial assistance is received, is completed. In that context, in paragraph 24 of the reported decision, the Court clearly noted that the amount towards family pension cannot be deducted from the claim amount for determination of a just compensation under the Act. Further, the High Court has erroneously assumed that the family of the deceased would be entitled for family pension amount immediately after the death of the deceased employee. That is in the teeth of the scheme of the 2006 Rules, in particular Rule 5(2) thereof. The said Rules provide for financial assistance on compassionate grounds, as also, other benets to the family members of the deceased employee and as a package thereof, Rule 5(2) stipulates that the family pension as per the normal rules would be payable to the family members only after the period of delivery of financial assistance is completed. The validity of this provision is not put in issue. Suce it to say that the view taken by the High Court in Ajmero (supra) is a departure from the scheme envisaged by the 2006 Rules, in particular, Rule 5(2). That cannot be countenanced. 18. The validity of this provision is not put in issue. Suce it to say that the view taken by the High Court in Ajmero (supra) is a departure from the scheme envisaged by the 2006 Rules, in particular, Rule 5(2). That cannot be countenanced. 18. As a matter of fact, in the present case, the High Court committed manifest error in assuming that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be eligible to receive financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. The eligibility to receive such financial assistance has been spelt out in Rule 3 of the 2006 Rules read with the provision of Pension/Family Pension Scheme, 1964. It appears that major sons and married daughters are not included in the definition. However, we need not dilate on that aspect in the present proceedings any further. It has come in the evidence of Gobind Singh, Clerk in SDM Oce (PW-1) that the legal representatives of the deceased have not submitted any request for getting financial assistance till he had deposed. Indeed, respondent No. 1, who had entered the witness box, did depose that they had applied for getting salary of their deceased mother. The fact remains that there is no clear evidence on record that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are held to be eligible to get nancial assistance or in fact, they are getting such financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. The High Court, therefore, instead of providing for deduction of the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased on this count (under the 2006 Rules), from the compensation amount, should have independently determined the compensation amount and ordered payment thereof subject to legal representatives of the deceased ling affidavit/declaration before the executing Court that they have not received nor would they claim any amount towards financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, so as to become entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount.” 13. In view of the above, approach of the tribunal to deduct pension received by widow of deceased is also erroneous approach. In addition, grant of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses as per bills is to be maintained. Albeit, compensation under non-pecuniary heads needed to be rationalized. 14. Thus, it is established that the tribunal committed error in taking up the income of the deceased to Rs.2,500/- per month which ought to have taken at Rs.9,000/- per month for arriving at the dependency loss. Albeit, compensation under non-pecuniary heads needed to be rationalized. 14. Thus, it is established that the tribunal committed error in taking up the income of the deceased to Rs.2,500/- per month which ought to have taken at Rs.9,000/- per month for arriving at the dependency loss. Deduction of emoluments & perks as well as pension while computing dependency loss is legally impermissible. 15. It is argued that since the deceased left the sole dependent, the tribunal has rightly deducted one-half towards the personal and pocket expenses. This Court does not find any force in such submission. To be noted that, deceased was married and except claimant no other dependent is survived; however deceased cannot be said to be bachelor to attract one-half of the income towards personal and pocket expenses and thus as per decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) one-third amount should be deducted by the tribunal. From the record, it appears that birth date of the deceased was 01/05/1995 and date of road accident is 17/11/2017. Thus, the deceased was 43 years old at the time of road accident. Taking cue from decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), rise of 25% to the future prospect is required to be granted, as also amount under the head of consortium is also enhanced, as also the multiplier of 14 would be made applicable instead of 13 considering the age of the deceased at the time of road accident. 16. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of Dependency: (Rs.9,000/- x 12 + 25% future prospect (-) one-third towards personal and pocket expenses and multiplier of 14 is applied. 12,60,000/- Loss of consortium 48,400/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 36,300/- Medical Expenses 15,000/- Total 13,59,700/- Already awarded by the tribunal 3,32,500/- Enhanced amount of compensation 10,27,200/- 17. In wake of above, I hold that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and claimants are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.13,59,700/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant – insurance company – org. opponent no.5 is dismissed. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant – insurance company – org. opponent no.5 is dismissed. Both the insurance companies are held liable to pay the compensation of enhanced amount of Rs.10,27,200/- [Rs.13,59,700-3,32,500/] with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The insurance companies are directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest and costs within six weeks from today including the interest and costs. It is an admission position that accident took place between the truck and metadoor and tribunal assess the issue of liability of both the errant vehicle to the extent of 80% for the truck and 20% for the metadoor which is maintained in absence of any quarrel on this aspect. However, since the deceased was third party, the claimant would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation jointly and severally from any of the wrong doer or from all. 19. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure and as per the apportionment fixed by the tribunal. 20. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. If order of apportionment is not made by the tribunal, it shall be made while disbursing the amount of compensation. 21. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.